From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: Loryn Jenkins Subject: Re: Which wastes more time? (Was Re: Software landmines (loops)) Date: 1998/09/08 Message-ID: <35F42CAC.6F566DC7@s054.aone.net.au>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 388777363 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <6rfra4$rul$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35DBDD24.D003404D@calfp.co.uk> <6sbuod$fra$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6sebjr$b69$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6sff74$q0s@gurney.reilly.home> <6sh2j5$jnl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35EC2E5A.16DB6CB1@bigfoot-.com> <6sjc0a$1lk$3@news.indigo.ie> <35EFB09E.15412933@s054.aone.net.au> <35f2bd98.40599408@news.erols.com> <35F06A58.F968BDE1@s054.aone.net.au> <35f48276.90997557@news.erols.com> <35F0C3C9.D1E56FF3@s054.aone.net.au> <6srh67$sj5$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35F1C0B9.8A50CEB0@s054.aone.net.au> <6ssmjd$h0l$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35F20C37.89A79442@s054.aone.net.au> <6su5ir$co8$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35F30B44.EDF1F9F2@s054.aone.net.au> <6svc3j$2cv$1@hirame.wwa.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: news.mel.aone.net.au 905194713 9346 203.12.186.171 (7 Sep 1998 18:58:33 GMT) Organization: TekRite Pty Ltd Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: loryn@acm.org NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Sep 1998 18:58:33 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-07T18:58:33+00:00 List-Id: > I don't think I have to. You see, the programmer who writes the software > would probably not call the base class SIMULTON. They would probably call > the base class PERSON. At least there is a good chance that this would be > so. Are you joking here? No? Well, clearly that programmer isn't me. I very much do try to choose names for things at an appropriate level of abstraction. (In a real program, I'm likely to be slightly more specific than SIMULTON, too.) I don't think PERSON is an appropriate level of naming for this abstraction: it clashes with my concept of PERSON as representing a certain abstraction of people in MIS-type applications. And I wouldn't consider these simulated thingies to be 'people'. Anyway. Thank you for the example. I suppose I rejected it as valid *because* I would 'naturally' tend towards a simple solution (inheritance) before the more complex solution (Role Pattern), and I perceive the simple solution as working very well here. However, in (most) applications that represent abstractions of real persons, I would very much be loathe to represent a role of the person as a sub-type ... because I know how all too easily the real world (and changes in requirements) can intrude on my neatly constructed representation. (But that is probably a circuitous argument, and doesn't defend my (rather extremely presented) opinion in above postings.) Thanks for your contribution to this thread. I have enjoyed it; and learned some valuable things. Loryn Jenkins